A new feasibility study on options to fight deforestation will be a litmus test for the European Union’s commitment to halt deforestation by 2020, writes Nicole Polsterer.

Nicole Polsterer is a campaigner at FERN, the forests and rights NGO.

In 2012, the EU imported an estimated €6 billion of commodities such as soy, beef, leather and palm oil, which were grown on land illegally cleared of forests. This makes the EU one of the world’s biggest importers of agricultural products resulting from illegal deforestation.

Recognising the scale of the problem, in 2013 the European Parliament and the Council instructed the European Commission to develop an Action Plan to tackle deforestation and degradation. Two years later, the EU committed to halt deforestation by 2020, and commissioned a feasibility study. Last Friday (March 16), one-year overdue, the study was finally published.

Multiple options to tackle one vast problem

So, is this long-awaited study an adequate response to what – until now – has been an intractable problem?

First, the study correctly identifies the underlying causes of deforestation in producer countries, including insecure land tenure, weak law enforcement and weak governance. It is also very attentive to possible repercussions on European small and medium enterprises.

And it offers three possible options:

Publish a new Communication on Deforestation without requiring any new measures

The study states that the third option “should have the greatest impact on the objective while at the same time requiring the largest effort and time on the part of the EU”.

On this, they are absolutely right: regulation is the strongest option to address the EU’s deforestation problem.

Voluntary commitments do not work

Regulation is urgently required. Voluntary commitments to zero deforestation and sustainability labels alone do not work, as a body of evidence shows. Even major companies agree, as revealed when we interviewed them last year.

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a good example.

Established in 2004 to promote the growth and use of “sustainable palm oil”, this initiative has repeatedly faced criticism, following reports from NGOs and communities showing how RSPO certified palm oil plantations destroyed primary forests and violated human rights. Such reports also show that RSPO failed to audit palm oil plantations properly and that communities frequently wait for years for a decision after complaining to RSPO dispute resolution channels.

The Amazon soy moratorium is another example. Adopted in 2006, it is the first major voluntary zero-deforestation agreement taken by the private sector in tropical forests. But its announcement caused a deforestation spike before being adopted, and it failed to address the roots of the problem, therefore, moving deforestation to other regions, such as the Cerrado. This could have been avoided with a more holistic policy intervention covering all ecosystems.

An opportunity to better trace imports

Another major problem with “forest risk commodities” is the difficulty in tracing the origin of the products.

A progress report issued by the signatories of the New York forest declaration shows that only 2% of palm oil companies and 14% of soy companies can actually trace their products back to its origin.

A regulation with mandatory due diligence requirements could change this situation, as it would require companies to fully trace their supply chain. Such a push would improve reporting requirements as well as transparency efforts. This would, in turn, help companies to face their current traceability challenges and achieve their commitments to reduce deforestation.

The feasibility study’s third option gives the EU the opportunity to establish such due diligence measures. This would send a strong signal to the market that commodities tainted with deforestation and human rights abuses are unacceptable.

Member States have started taking action

The good news is that member states have not waited for the European Commission. Some are already taking action to reduce the deforestation they cause.

In 2017, France adopted the ground-breaking ‘Devoir de Vigilance’ Law, requiring French companies to establish a risk assessment, and report and act on environmental and social damage within their supply chains, including subcontractors and suppliers all over the world.

At the Environment Council in March 2018, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark and France, all members of the Amsterdam Declaration group,pushed member states to call on the Commission to propose, as soon as possible, an ambitious strategy to combat imported deforestation. They also encouraged other member states to step up zero-deforestation activities.

Is the EU serious about protecting forests and the local communities that depend on them?

It remains unclear whether the European Commission will follow up this study with concrete policy proposals.

The EU can make a huge difference by regulating the demand side, and France has shown that it is feasible. But it takes political will.

It also requires policy coherence, and not pushing for trade deals that could fatally undermine efforts to stamp out deforestation. The Commission is currently doing everything it can to finalise a free trade agreement with Mercosur countries, including Brazil which produces 60% of the commodities imported by the EU that are linked to illegally-sourced deforestation. Such a deal could have devastating impacts on forests and forest peoples’ rights.

This begs the question of where the Commission’s priorities lie.

It has already shown it can ensure that the fish we eat and the timber we buy is legal. It must now follow up the publication of this feasibility study with a regulation to stop EU imports of agricultural products that cause deforestation and negative social impacts.

Advertisement

Comments

2 responses to “Commission study shows path to end agricultural deforestation – now it must act”

The RSPO believes this article offers an unfair and hastily painted portray of its achievements. While we recognise that the system is not perfect and that things do go wrong, we are moving in the right direction overall and it is unjustified to label the RSPO as a failure.
Currently 19% of global palm oil production is RSPO certified. This equals 11.83 million tonnes in volumes, one of the highest proportions among a broad range of certified commodities.
Our membership counts 3726 organisations from seven stakeholder groups, including growers, refiners and traders, manufacturers, retailers, investors, social NGOs and environmental NGOs in 91 countries. They represent the entire supply chain. The RSPO has managed to bring all these players together and facilitate an agreement leading to the adoption of a common standard to certify sustainable palm oil. The certification is done by third-party auditors and it covers every step in the supply chain, to ensure the chain of custody.
We have already gone through one revision of the standard and now we are completing the second, because we are committed to constant improvement.
By implementing our standards, palm oil growers commit to no development on primary forests. In addition they have, to date, set-aside an area of 189,777 hectares, which cannot be converted into new plantations as it contains environmental or cultural assets which must be preserved. This is a real contribution to the fight against deforestation.
We are also working to build a more transparent and accountable palm oil sector. Our members have agreed to disclose their concession maps and we have uploaded them onto an app, GeoRSPO, equipped with geospatial analysis tools to monitor deforestation and forest fires in certified concessions.
Our members must submit an annual progress report, which is publicly accessible and allows NGOs such as WWF and the Zoological Society of London to publish their scorecards of corporate performance.
To ensure the inclusiveness of our certification, we have created a Smallholder Support Fund (RSSF). Through this fund, 10% of income generated from the trade of Certified Sustainable Palm Oil is allocated to smallholders to begin their journey to sustainable certification.
These are just some of the initiatives we have taken to help palm oil producers and users work together on a system delivering the scale and the trust necessary to make change possible.

We recently saw the lobbying and protest from Malaysia about its palm oil and biodiesel. Question of interest is whether Malaysian palm oil is RSPO certified along with that of Indonesia. Is the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) certification accepted by RSPO? Is it less stringent than that of RSPO. Has Malaysia made the EUand its Member States accept its MSPO rather one which it fashioned? Can anyone enlightened me?